Re: Moon Landing a Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>

From: Jay Windley (webmaster_at_clavius.org)
Date: 02/09/05 

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:07:12 -0700

"Warhol" <molarh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36t9qkF55ee9sU5@individual.net...
|
| ...you are afraid of the father in the heavens.

I have no problem with God. It's his fan club that annoys me.

| > Anyone can protest in words only that someone else is wrong. It takes
| > someone of actual skill and understanding to demonstrate the wrongness
of
| > someone else's ideas.
|
| you are joking? right.

Not in the least. You say I'm propagandizing. Propaganda has two basic
properties: it is of questionable truth, and it is intended not to educate
the reader but instead to instill in him belief in some agenda. It is very
easy for anyone to name-call and leave it at that. But if you really
believed in your label you could show how my remarks are of questionable
truth, and you could give the evidence that I am aimed at some agenda, as
opposed to simply trying to correct an error.

You have made one attempt at showing that I'm not telling the truth, but I
answered that challenge in spades and you declined to follow up. Therefore
that proof fails. As to whether I have some ulterior agenda, that's the
standard battle cry of all conspiracy theorists (i.e., that their critics
"must" be brainwashed into the "official" line). And sadly the argument for
that accusation is always circular. If you think you can do better, you're
welcome to try. But you haven't done it yet.

Your arguments are like the parent who comes home and accuses his child of
stealing cookies from the cookie jar. He likes cookies, after all. And he
was home alone with the cookie jar. So "logically" he "must" have taken
some cookies. And even though your child protests his innocence, you stick
to the argument of motive and opportunity. You never actually go to see
whether there are any cookies missing from the cookie jar.

So no, I'm not joking at all. I'm daring you to look in the cookie jar, but
you don't want to. Are you afraid you'll find all the cookies there?

| Come on, how many years shall we go on with this lies.

Depends on how many years you and other misinformed people keep telling
them.

Above I pointed out that your arguments are just like those of other
conspiracy theorists -- it's all about suspicion and speculated motives and
innuendo, when many of the questions are answered simply by an appeal to
fact (in most cases, facts that you don't know). But actually discussing
conclusive facts won't do for a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorists
only make money or maintain their celebrity status when the debate
perpetuates. If it's answered one way or the other (even in their favor),
their income dries up. That's why conspiracy theorist arguments are always
built around innuendo and speculation -- those can be spun indefinitely to
provide many years of comfortable ambiguity, idly questioning everything and
answering nothing.

So you can bet when a conspiracy theorist demands proof, that's the last
thing he really wants to look at.

| The day you can go back to the moon, warne me.

We already went six times. What's so magical about the seventh, that it's
the one you should accept? When you can explain *coherently* what was wrong
with all the other missions, then you can argue for getting more data in
order to solve the question. Until then, the answers we have are doing just
fine.

| Till than, i shall believe in my religion, and say whatever
| my religion permits me to say.

And, apparently like many religions, to believe in that regardless of how it
stacks up to the facts everyone else can see.

| > Quoting Pravda nonsense doth not you erudite make.
|
| It's not that you are working as decorator in a theater that makes
| you an expert on moon Questions.

No, it's my college degree in engineering and my experience as a working
engineer for many years and as a historian of space technology that makes me
an expert on moon questions. You're welcome to try to demonstrate superior
understanding, if that's what you think will resolve the question in your
mind, but I wouldn't hold my breath doing it. So far you've displayed only
the ability to plagiarize and ramble.

| SHALL THE ZOG TEMPLE SAVE THE WORLD, or shall be a simple Moorish man
| with his temple who shall take over that task, on him again? that
| would be the right question. and who to believe.

But it's not about whom to believe. This isn't about personal credibility.
It's about what the facts say. I've provided the facts, and you have evaded
them.

| > That depends on whether you can provide any verifiable evidence of your
| > premise.
|
| Go to india and ask them, or do google search and you shall find.

Nope. I have no obligation to do your homework, nor to respond to
unsubstantiated accusations. 

-- 
                                          |
The universe is not required to conform   |  Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant.      |  webmaster @ clavius.org
Quantcast